importance the respondent attaches to the pro-argument "The forest is freely accessible by law at all times and offers a growing population recreation, peace and clean air. An increase in cantonal contributions is therefore justified." in favor of the cantonal proposal "JA! für euse Wald" (only voters)

respondent's agreement to the contra-argument "The total cost of CHF 16 million is almost four times as much as the current contribution to the Aargau forest. This would place too heavy a burden on the cantonal budget." against the cantonal proposal "JA! für euse Wald" (only voters)

importance the respondent attaches to the contra-argument "The total cost of CHF 16 million is almost four times as much as the current contribution to the Aargau forest. This would place too heavy a burden on the cantonal budget." against the cantonal proposal "JA! für euse Wald" (only voters)

respondent's agreement to the pro-argument "The additional expenditure for the forest demanded by the initiative accounts for only 0.3 percent of the cantonal budget. We should afford this for the benefit of the Aargau forest." in favor of the cantonal proposal "JA! für euse Wald" (only voters)

importance the respondent attaches to the pro-argument "The additional expenditure for the forest demanded by the initiative accounts for only 0.3 percent of the cantonal budget. We should afford this for the benefit of the Aargau forest." in favor of the cantonal proposal "JA! für euse Wald" (only voters)

respondent's agreement to the contra-argument "The owners – mainly local communities or private individuals – should be responsible for the maintenance and management of the forest, and not the canton." against the cantonal proposal "JA! für euse Wald" (only voters)

importance the respondent attaches to the contra-argument "The owners – mainly local communities or private individuals – should be responsible for the maintenance and management of the forest, and not the canton." against the cantonal proposal "JA! für euse Wald" (only voters)